The judgment below

Among them, the part on Defendant A and B (excluding the part which rejected an application for compensation) shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant .

1. The lower court’s judgment rejected all applications by the applicant for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation failed to file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part dismissing the said application for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found Defendant E to have committed the crime of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine (Defendant E) 1 and the crime of acceptance of bribe

A. The term “defendant” in this paragraph refers to Defendant E.

Considering that there exists a consensus on exemption from or discount of golf costs between B and B, the establishment of the crime of acceptance of bribe (the date on which the defendant actually finites golf) and the crime of promising a bribe (the date on which the defendant made a promise to a golf course through B and revoked) was recognized.

However, since the defendant and B cannot be deemed to have a conclusive agreement on the exemption or discount of golf expenses, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

In the case of the defendant, such as the subject of profit attribution, etc., the defendant was exempted from the actual golf and the person other than the defendant was to bear the cost.

As long as there was a separate person scheduled to bear the expenses, the defendant did not think that he would bear the expenses, so it should be deemed that there was no awareness of the exemption or discount of the expenses.

Even if the defendant had awareness of the exemption or discount of the golf cost, the benefit from the exemption or discount of the costs is deemed to have been attributed to the person scheduled to bear the costs. Therefore, if the golf is actually exempted from the costs, the person scheduled to bear the costs, who is given a discount on the costs of golf or cancelled the golf reservation, but the costs were to be incurred.